Mission Accomplished, or was it?

The quality of the two photos I used did not match, the photo of Seamus Wolfe was a higher resolution than the Aircraft Carrier photo, but I think everyone will get the meaning. I think it's rather comical myself. It also works on a few different levels.

So, from what I understand, the decision of the SAC to continue with the Hearing yesterday is being challenged to the BOA.

Here is the section from the SFUO Constitution:

8.4.1 In order to render a valid juridical decision, the members of Student Arbitration Committee must ensure that the following principles have been respected: (a) The parties have agreed to submit to the decision of the Student Arbitration Committee.
Notice the tense in the word 'agreed'. Did they not agree to submit to the SAC when they ran for office? Or in the days leading up to the hearing? Or by filing their defence papers?

But that is all over, it is time to move onto the next phase. March 29, 2009 is the next schedule BOA meeting. Notwithstanding the current motion to making it easier to overturn a SAC decision, this will be an interesting meeting. But here is my contention, which I mentioned briefly in my last post, if the BOA reverses the decision of the SAC to proceed with the hearing has anything really been accomplished to stop it? I mean, okay, the BOA decides that the SAC should not have proceeded on March 6, the SAC will just be convened at a later date! One where All the defendants are present no doubt (since Alex Chaput had a conflict and was unable to attend the hearing).

But what should we do if the BOA sides with the SAC decision? We cannot just go back in time and do the SAC Hearing over, its already been made a mockery of. If the BOA decides that the SAC was correct in continuing, then the accused who flagrantly disrespected it by walking out and creating near riot condition should be further punished. Impeachment anyone?

And for those of you who were unable to attend, La Rotonde took a bunch of good pictures, here are a few that I believe show how the Accused conspired to make a mockery of the SFUO highest judicial body, check out the smiling faces!








I leave you with this. Can you just walk out of a fraud hearing by saying that you don't respect the authority of the court? And the fact that they walked out without allowing the SAC to deliberate on thier disputation of the proceedings show they have no respect for the Constitution, even though their supporters, some of whom sit on the BOA and were acting without any shred of integrity, kept crying for the Constitution to be followed. Well if you were quiet enough to allow the Arbitors to speak, you would have noticed that they were. The fact that the accused walked out meant that they waived their right to a further defence. And since their claim was rejected, based on CANADIAN evidence law, the plan was to disrupt the Hearing in such a way that it was impossible to continue.

A Flagrant Disrespect for Democracy

Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\

Function: noun Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire Date: 14th century

1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness synonyms see honesty

I truly believe that all politicians or people in a position of trust and authority need to act with integrity. While the last part of the definition might make you chuckle, honesty IS something that we look for in our elected officials. Making empty promises is different that acting dis-honestly. But that is another conversation.

I think there should be a clause in the SFUO Constitution that states that each member of the Executive need to act with integrity throughout their term. This would not mean that they can't go out and get really drunk and have a good time. That would not violate the definition of integrity (incorruptibility, soundness, and completeness). What we must remember is the SFUO Executive are duly elected and paid for by us. They come to the student body and ask us to elect them to this very public position. They are not volunteers but employees. Should we not expect a level of professionalism from our own SFUO Executive?

The behaviour of the accused Executive members (and their supporters) was a few levels below immaturity. Intimidation, yelling, bullying, and grandstanding is not acting in a way which displays integrity. The four accused should be ashamed of themselves.

In the end the stall tactic will not be successful. What happened was after the gong-show began and the accused decided that they did not respect the authority of the SAC (which is the highest body of the SFUO by the way) was that the SAC was unable to continue due to the unruly behaviour of the accused supporters. The decision was made to defer the decision to continue to the BOA. But that would not end anything. Even if the BOA decides to find the SAC in violation, the appeal would still be active, just start at a new date. But what happens if the BOA rejects the appeal? The Mugabe-esque tactics of the accused should be held against them once this Arbitration does start.

On a good note, on my way out I passed Seamus Wolfe, and we made eye-contact and it looked like he expected me to say something positive, instead my words were, "Robert Mugabe couldn't have done it better." And kept walking.

The Manoeuvring of a Lame-Duck Executive

The term lame-duck comes mainly from US politics. The President is elected in November but does not take office until the following January, during which period they are referred to as the "President-Elect". Generally the period in between the two administrations is a quiet one, where the current President attempts to cement their legacy. ie: no major changes.

We do not have this situation in Canada, since in the parliamentary system, the current Parliament is dissolved during the elections, and opens again after the elections (and our campaign is 6-7 weeks long instead of 18 months+). On our campus, the SFUO represents the former idea. Our new administration is elected in February, but takes over in May. I can't speak to the history of BOA actions during the lame-duck period, but I will speak of current BOA actions.

At the last BOA meeting there was a constitutional amendment proposed in a first reading (the second reading is at the next meeting). The timing of this amendment is very suspicious and soon you will know why. The amendment is proposing a change to the way Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) decisions can be overturned by the BOA, by making it easier to do so. I ask you, why is this change happening now? We are about to enter into a SAC session that could very well disqualify 4 members of our incoming executive, 3 of which are current members and sit on the BOA. Currently in order for the appeal to the SAC decision to even be heard by the BOA there needs to be a vote of 4/5. Then if the appeal is heard, it takes a 2/3 vote to reverse it. The proposal is to lower the amount for it to be heard to 2/3.

According to the BOA list I found (although it is poorly maintained) there are 31 seats on the BOA. 4/5 of the votes would be 25 while 2/3 is 21. That means that it would take 4 less votes to successfully reverse a SAC decision. Now you might be saying: I don't see a major problem there; it still takes 2/3 of the BOA to change it. But remember that the current exec holds 6 seats of that 21, 3 of whom are implicated in the decision (I hope that all three would recuse themselves for the entire period of the arbitration though). Thus it would now only take 15 BOA votes to overturn an SAC decision. To compound matters, section 8.8.3 states that the BOA decision is final and unchallengeable. So the SAC could find total guilt in the 4 accused candidates, then the BOA could simply overturn that decision, and we would be stuck with the guilty people.

But my biggest concern is that these changes are being made now. First off because they are a lame-duck Board, but mostly because of the more than coincidental timing here. We have an extremely important SAC about to happen, and the executive is moving to make it easier for them to overturn an SAC decision. The motion pretty easily passed the first reading last Sunday, but my hope is that our duly elected Board members will see this for what at best is simply an improperly timed action that should be rejected, or more cynically is a clear attempt to subvert our processes to hold onto power by any means necessary.